[pct-l] How We Learn Stuff

[jdawud at yahoo.com (Junaid Dawud)]

Yeah, 

I'm a geologist too.  Perhaps you've seen the graphs
of CO2 over the last 50 years taken from the Big
Island of Hawaii?  They show a very obvious upward
curve (the seasonal ups and downs are also visible). 
Its pretty damn obvious that since the industrial
revolution and the widespread use of vehicles,
atmospheric (and oceanic) CO2 has spiked.  Now is it
simply coincidence that since then our temps have
increased?  Not very likely.

Also,

>From the detailed accounts that I have seen, this
> warming trend is;
> 
> 1) VERY short term relative to other records of
> similar events, and,
> 
> 2) not unprecedented in speed of warming or
> magnitude of warming.

Of course it is short term (geologically and
socially).  It just started (100 years ain't nothin). 
If it keeps going though, 'short term' it will not be.

HMMMMM, everything I've learned has indicated that it
is pretty unprecedented in terms of speed and
magnitude.  Could you enlighten me?


--- Bighummel@aol.com wrote:

> I've been keeping out of this one as I am a bit
> biased on this subject 
> (global warming) being a geologist.  Geologists have
> derived a fairly detailed 
> record of the earth's temperature over the past
> several tens of thousands of years 
> through ice cores, over the past several 100's of
> thousands of years through 
> marine micro fossil studies and over the past
> millions of years through other 
> means.  Each of these offer a lessening and
> lessening amount of detail, i.e., 
> the most recent records are the most detailed.  
> 
> >From the detailed accounts that I have seen, this
> warming trend is;
> 
> 1) VERY short term relative to other records of
> similar events, and,
> 
> 2) not unprecedented in speed of warming or
> magnitude of warming.
> 
> An alarm was sounded a decade or more ago when ice
> cores showed that the last 
> true ice age came on in a matter of years, not
> decades or centuries as was 
> postulated previously.  In other words the
> temperature needed to initiate an ice 
> age could come about before 2010.  Thus if this
> could happen then certainly 
> the opposite too.  
> 
> Did WE cause this?  Human arrogance has put us at
> the center of the universe, 
> at the center of our solar system and in other
> rather embarrassing positions 
> over the coarse of history.  I rather suspect (note:
> "suspect") that this is 
> the case too.  
> 
> One thing that geologists understand very clearly is
> that the ongoing 
> processes that drive this world, rock, wind,
> weather, water, fire, etc., are 
> extremely complex and the interaction of these
> processes are not well understood yet.  
>   Predicting the weather for next year is similar to
> predicting how this 
> molecule or that may shift the atmospheric
> temperatures.  IOW, "I don't know, but 
> let's assume we are causing it 
> and try to do something about our contribution" is
> my position. 
> 
> Sorry to further the confusion on this most volatile
> issue.
> 
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs